Aspire Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222554154
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Getzville, NY, USA
Phone
7165055560
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$380,914
Expenses
$181,251
Assets
$3,538,644
Liabilities
$85,604

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARIO ALBERT (PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH PORTO (VICE PRESIDENT (2023-2024), TREASURER (2024-2025))
  • ELIZABETH SIMONS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RENEE FILIP (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RENEE FILIP (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $382,912 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER BALL (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $260,079 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the aspire foundation is to accept, administer and invest all charitable funds on behalf of aspire of western New York, inc. (aspire) and to solicit funding for future needs. The foundation is a fully qualified 501(c)(3) charitable organization. All gifts to the foundation are tax-deductible as provided by law. Aspire's mission is to support children and adults with developmental and similar disabilities, helping them to live their lives to the fullest by providing individualized assistance based on personal choices.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation does not provide any program services. It carries onvarious fundraising activities only. Grants are awarded to aspire ofwestern New York, inc. For the benefit of developmentally disabledindividuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 29
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.6%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 23.7%; rating input score 24
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.52; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.6% of revenue deployed · 23.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $383K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.